ORDER : Seeking quashing of notice dated 01.12.2011 in connection with Eviction Case No. 02/TPH/2011 passed by the Estate Officer, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the S.D.O., Rajmahal settled the land (RailwayB Class) in favour of Seikh Mohammad Ali in the year, 1951 in Mutation Case No. 43 of 195152. Thereafter, Seikh Mohammad Ali sold the land to M.Q Ali and M.Q. Ali sold the land to Zamila Khatoon and the Zamila Khatoon later on sold the land to Ashmar Khatoon through registered sale deed and Ashmar Khatoon sold the land to Abdul Zalil. Thereafter, Abdul Zalil sold the land to Gokul Chandra Dutta and his brothers. The petitioner purchased the said land through registered sale deed dated 21.07.1999 from Kumud Shankar Dutta who is the brother of Gokul Chandra Dutta. The petitioner has been residing over the said land. A notice dated 01.12.2011 was issued under Section 4 (1) of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and on the same day order dated 01.12.2011 was passed under Section 5 (1) of the Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 submits that, the showcause under Section 4 of the Act mandates minimum 7 days' time for reply however, without awaiting the reply of the petitioner, vide order dated 01.12.2011 the petitioner was directed to vacate the land in question within a period of 30 days. It is further submitted that, the notice under Section 4 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 does not specify the boundaries of the land and therefore, the impugned notice as well as order both dated 01.12.2011 are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on decision in “Sri Shambhu Dutta @ Shambhu Dutta Vs. Union of India and Others” reported in 2013 (1) JCR 337 (Jhr) and in “Binod Kumar Choudhar Vs. Union of India and Others” reported in 2013 (2) JCR 576 (Jhr). 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent-Railways submits that, the petitioner has constructed Jhuggi near the railway line and the land is required for expansion of the railway line. Union of India and Others” reported in 2013 (2) JCR 576 (Jhr). 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent-Railways submits that, the petitioner has constructed Jhuggi near the railway line and the land is required for expansion of the railway line. It is further submitted that, the land in question belongs to railways and the petitioner is an illegal encroacher. 6. Impugning the notice and order dated 01.12.2011, the present writ petition was filed on 11.01.2012 and vide order dated 07.02.2012, it was ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner to evict him. 7. The relevant provision of Section 4 (2) (b) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is extracted below; “4 (2) (b): Require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons who are, or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the public premises,- (i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue thereof; and (ii) to appear before the estate officer on the date specified in the notice along with the evidence which they intend to produce in support of the cause shown, and also for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.” 8. A perusal of the above provision indicates that 7 days' minimum time for showcause reply is required to be given to the noticee. A perusal of Section 5 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 further discloses that an order for eviction can be passed only after considering the cause, if any, shown by the noticee and after considering the evidence produced by him besides, personal hearing as contemplated under Section 4(2)(b) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is required to be afforded to the noticee by the Estate Officer. In the present proceeding the impugned notice was issued on 01.12.2011 and order under Section 5 of the Act has also been passed on the same day. Evidently, the Estate Officer has committed serious error in law and therefore, the impugned notice and order both dated 01.12.2011 require interference by this Court. In the present proceeding the impugned notice was issued on 01.12.2011 and order under Section 5 of the Act has also been passed on the same day. Evidently, the Estate Officer has committed serious error in law and therefore, the impugned notice and order both dated 01.12.2011 require interference by this Court. A perusal of the showcause notice and order passed under Section 5 of the Act further disclose that the description of land has been given thus, “unauthorized structure and residential building at TPH. Location in bet: line no. 4, 5. TPH – Rajmahal, SBh end”. I find that the description of the land is absolutely vague. The petitioner could not have responded to the notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 dated 01.12.2011 and for this reason also the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under the provision of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is liable to be quashed. 9. In view of the above, the impugned notice and order both dated 01.12.2011 are quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.